LAW JOURNAL
FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR COLLEGE OF LAW
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
Volume 5
Spring
2015
CONTENTS
You Have Your Whole Life in Front of You . . . Behind Bars:
It’s Time to Ban De Facto Life Without Parole for Juvenile Non-Homicide
Offenders...................................................................Rachel Forman
1
Death Row: Mentally Impaired Inmates and the
Appeal Process .................................................... Inalvis M. Zubiaur
35
Injection and the Right of Access: The Intersection of the Eighth and First
Amendments ........................................................ Timothy F. Brown
74
Traffic Enforcement by Camera: Privacy and Due Process in the Age of
Big Brother.................. Victor D. Lopez and Eugene T. Maccarrone
120
Fictitious Labeling: The Implications
in an Immigration Context ................................................ Efe Ukala
138
Increase Quota, Invite Opportunities, Improve Economy: An Examination
of the Educational and Employment Crisis of Undocumented Immigrants
and Individuals From Abroad ...................................... Brittany Fink 180
The Crucible: Old Notions of Hysteria
in Modern America .......................................... Katharine Villalobos
202
Falling Through the Cracks: The Treatment of
Female Drug Traffickers ................................. Marissa N. Goldberg
231
Seeking Truth in the Balkans: Analysis of Whether the International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia Has Contributed to Peace,
Reconciliation, Justice, or Truth in the Region and the Tribunal’s Overall
Enduring Legacy ...................... Erin K. Lovall and June E. Vutrano
252
Law Journal for Social Justice is supported by the Sandra Day O’Connor
College of Law at Arizona State University. The Law Journal for Social
Justice mailing address is: Law Journal for Social Justice, P.O. Box
877906, 1100 S. McAllister Ave., Tempe, AZ 85287. The Law Journal for
Social Justice email address is: [email protected].
Subscription: Law Journal for Social Justice is an online journal.
Editions are accessible through the URL: http://www.law.asu.edu/ljsj/, and
http://www.ljsj.wordpress.com/journal
Copyright: © Copyright 2015 by Law Journal for Social Justice. All
rights reserved except as otherwise provided.
Cite as 5 L.J. Soc. Justice __ (2015).
LAW JOURNAL FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR COLLEGE OF LAW
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
Volume 5
Spring
2015
2014 – 2015 EDITORIAL BOARD
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Kristyne Schaaf-Olson
EXECUTIVE MANAGING EDITOR
MARINA KOVACEVIC
EXECUTIVE BLOG EDITOR
Carolyn Camplain
NOTES & COMMENTS EDITOR
Miguel Lozano
EXECUTIVE ARTICLES EDITOR
Alex Ivan
Asha Agrawal
SYMPOSIUM EDITOR
Marcos Tapia
SYMPOSIUM CO-CHAIR
Haley Schmidt
ARTICLES EDITORS
Lindsey Carpenter
Nathan Erickson
Kyle Ewing
Wayne Freeland
Nicole Fries
Todd Gee
Darick Holden
P.J. Judd
Brittany Neel
Andrew Orozco
Zachary Reedy
John Yankovich
Michelle Young
MANAGING EDITORS
Lauren Marshall
Josh Montavon
David Schmidt
Lauren Vie
BLOG CONTRIBUTORS
Michael Alvarez
Caitlin Andrade
Carolyn Camplain
Eviana Englert
Nathan Erickson
Wayne Freeland
Nicole Fries
Todd Gee
Darick Holden
Erin Iungerich
Marina Kovacevic
Miguel Lozano
Lauren Marshall
Andrew Orozco
Haley Schmidt
Rashaad Thomas
John Yankovich
FACULTY ADVISOR: Zachary Kramer
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR COLLEGE OF LAW FACULTY
2014-2015
MICHAEL M. CROW, B.A., PH.D.
President of the University
SUSAN CHESLER, B.A., J.D.
Clinical Professor of Law
DOUGLAS J. SYLVESTER, B.A.; J.D., LL.M.
Dean, Sandra Day O’Conner College of
Law; Professor of Law; Faculty Fellow, Center
for Law, Science & Innovation
ADAM CHODOROW, B.A., M.A., J.D., LL.M.
Professor of Law; Willard H. Pedrick
Distinguished Research Scholar
KENNETH W. ABBOTT, A.B., J.D.
Professor of Law; Faculty Co-Director,
Center for Law and Global Affairs; Faculty
Fellow, Center for Law, Science & Innovation;
Professor of Global Studies, School of Politics
& Global Studies; Senior Sustainability Scholar,
Global Institute for Sustainability
ANDREW ASKLAND, A.B., B.S., M.A., PH. D.,
J.D.
Director, D.C. Program
CHRISTOPHER BAIER, B.S., J.D.
Chief Financial Officer and Assistant
Dean of Business Operations
JENNIFER BARNES, B.S., J.D.
Director of the Externship Program
ROBERT D. BARTELS, B.A., J.D.
Emeritus Professor of Law
PAUL BENDER, A.B., LL.B.
Professor of Law & Dean Emeritus
MICHAEL A. BERCH, B.A., J.D.
Emeritus Professor of Law
Daniel BODANSKY, A.B., M.PHIL., J.D.
Foundation Professor of Law; Faculty CoDirector, Center for Law and Global Affairs;
Affiliate Faculty Member, Center for Law,
Science & Innovation; Affiliate Faculty Member,
Global Institute of Sustainability, School of
Sustainability
KAREN BRADSHAW SCHULZ, B.S., M.B.A., J.D.
Associate Professor of Law; Senior
Sustainability Scientist, Global Institute of
Sustainability; Faculty Fellow, Center for Law,
Science, and Innovation; Program Affiliate
Scholar, Classical Liberal Institute, New York
University School of Law
ROBERT N. CLINTON, B.A., J.D.
Foundation Professor of Law; Faculty
Fellow, Center for Law, Science & Innovation
EVELYN H. CRUZ, B.A., J.D.
Clinical Professor of Law; Director,
Immigration Law and Policy Clinic
JAIME DAHLSTEDT, B.A., L.L.M., J.D., B.A.
Associate Clinical Professor of Law;
Founding Director, Juvenile & Family Justice
Clinic
CHUCK L. DALLYN, B.A., J.D.
Clinical Professor of Law
BOB DAUBER, B.A., J.D.
Clinical Professor of Law
LINDA J. DEMAINE, B.A., J.D., PH.D.
Professor of Law; Willard H. Pedrick
Distinguished Research Scholar; Faculty
Fellow, Center for Law, Science, & Innovation;
Affiliated Professor of Psychology; Director,
Law & Psychology Graduate Program
BETH DIFELICE, M.L.S., B.A., J.D., M.L.S.
Assistant Director, Ross-Blakley Law
Library & Head of Public Services
IRA MARK ELLMAN, B.A., M.A., J.D.
Charles J. Merriam Distinguished
Professor of Law; Affiliate Professor of
Psychology; Faculty Fellow, Center for Law,
Science, & Innovation
AARON X. FELLMETH, A.B., M.A., J.D.
Professor of Law; Willard H. Pedrick
Distinguished Research Scholar; Faculty
Fellow, Center for Law, Science, & Innovation;
Faculty Fellow, Center for Law and Global
Affairs
SARAH BUEL, B.A., J.D.
Clinical Professor of Law
PATTY FERGUSON-BOHNEE, B.A., J.D.
Faculty Director, Indian Legal Program;
Director, Indian Legal Clinic; Clinical
Professor of Law
CHARLES R. CALLEROS, B.A., J.D.
Professor of Law
DALE BECK FURNISH, A.B., J.D., LL.M.
Faculty Associate
GUY A. CARDINEAU, A.B., B.S., PH.D.
Emeritus Professor of Law
JOEL GARREAU
Professor of Law, Culture and Values;
Founding Director, The Prevail Project: Wise
Governance for Challenging Futures; Founding
Co-Director, Emerge: Artists + Scientists
ANDREW CARTER B.A., J.D.
Associate Clinical Professor of Law
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR COLLEGE OF LAW FACULTY
2014-2015
Redesign the Future; Founding Director, The
Seven Horizons Project; Affiliate Faculty
Member, ASU School for the Future of
Innovation in Society
Center: Russian, Eurasian & East European
Studies Jewish Studies
MARCY KARIN, B.A., J.D., LL.M.
Clinical Professor of Law; Director,
Work-Life Law and Policy Clinic
DAVID GARTNER, A.B., J.D., PH.D.
Professor of Law; Associate Dean;
DENNIS S. KARJALA, B.S.E., M.S., PH.D., J.D.
Faculty Co-Director Center for Law and Global
Jack E. Brown Chair and Professor of
Affairs; Faculty Affiliate, School of Public
Law; Faculty Fellow, Center for Law, Science &
Affairs; Senior Sustainability Scholar, Global
Innovation
Institute of Sustainability
DAVID H. KAYE, B.S., M.A., J.D.
KEVIN GOVER, A.B., J.D.
Emeritus Professor of Law
Professor of Law
ORDE KITTRIE, B.A., J.D.
BETSY GREY, B.A., J.D.
Professor of Law; Faculty Fellow, Center
Professor of Law, Alan A. Matheson
for Law, Science & Innovation; Faculty Fellow,
Fellow; Faculty Fellow, Center for Law, Science
Center for Law and Global Affairs
& Innovation
ZACHARY KRAMER, B.A., J.D.
MICHELLE L. GROSS, B.S., J.D.
Professor of Law
Director, Lisa Foundation Patent Law
J
ON
K
YL, J.D.
Clinic; Professor of Practice
O’Connor Distinguished Scholar of Law
ZACHARY J. GUBLER, B.A., J.D.
and Public Service; Professor of Practice
Professor of Law
AMY LANGENFELD, B.A., J.D.
SANFORD GUERIN, LL.M., J.D.
Clinical Professor of Law
Emeritus Professor of Law
RHETT LARSON, B.A., J.D., M.SC.
ANNE HERBERT, A.B., J.D.
Associate Professor of Law; Faculty
Director for Undergraduate Education;
Fellow, Center for Law and Global Affairs;
Senior Lecturer in Law
Faculty Fellow, Center for Law, Science &
TAMARA HERRERA, B.A., J.D., MASTERS OF
Innovation; Senior Sustainability Scientist,
INFORMATION AND LIBRARY SCIENCE
Global Institute of Sustainability; Senior
Clinical Professor of Law; Coordinator,
Research Fellow, Kyl Center for Water Policy at
Legal Writing Curriculum
the Morrison Institute for Public Policy
ART HINSHAW, A.B., J.D., LL.M.
Director of the Lodestar Dispute
Resolution Program; Clinical Professor of Law
JAMES G. HODGE JR., B.S., J.D., LL.M.
Professor of Public Health Law and
Ethics; Director, Public Health Law Network Western Region; Director, Public Health Law
and Policy Program; Affiliate Professor, Global
Health, School of Human Evolution & Social
Change; Affiliate Faculty, School of Public
Affairs
KIMBERLY HOLST, B.A., J.D., MLIS
Clinical Professor of Law
GARY T. LOWENTHAL, A.B., J.D.
Emeritus Professor of Law
MYLES V. LYNK, A.B., J.D.
Peter Kiewit Foundation Professor of Law
and the Legal Profession; Faculty Fellow,
Center for Law, Science & Innovation; Senior
Sustainability Scientist, Julie Ann Wrigley
Global Institute of Sustainability; Honors
Faculty, Barrett Honors College; Affiliated
Faculty, Justice and Social Inquiry, School of
Social Transformation, College of Liberal Arts
& Sciences
GARY E. MARCHANT, B.SC., PH.D., M.P.P., J.D.
Regent’ Professor of Law; Faculty
Director and Faculty Fellow, Center for Law,
Science & Innovation; Lincoln Professor of
DAVID KADER, B.A., J.D., LL.M.
Emerging Technologies, Law and Ethics; Senior
Professor of Law; Faculty Affiliate, Center Sustainability Scientist, Global Institute of
for the Study of Religion and Conflict; Faculty
Sustainability
Affiliate, Arizona Center for Medieval &
Renaissance Studies; Faculty Affiliate, Melikian
DIANE J. HUMETEWA, B.A., J.D.
Professor of Practice
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR COLLEGE OF LAW FACULTY
2014-2015
ALAN A. MATHESON, B.A., M.S., J.D.
Emeritus Professor of Law
KAIPONANEA T. MATSUMURA, J.D.
Associate Professor of Law
KRISTIN MAYES, B.A., M.P.A., J.D.
Professor of Practice; Faculty Director,
Program on Law & Sustainability
ERIC W. MENKHUS, B.S.E., M.B.A., J.D.
Associate Dean, New Education
Initiatives; Clinical Professor of Law; Faculty
Fellow, Center for Law, Science & Innovation
ROBERT J. MILLER, B.S., J.D.
Professor of Law
JEFFRIE G. MURPHY, B.A., PH.D., POSTDOCTORAL N.D.E.A. FELLOW
Regents’ Professor of Law, Philosophy &
Religious Studies
CHAD L. NOREUIL, B.A., J.D.
Clinical Professor of Law
SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR, B.S., J.D.
Faculty
CATHERINE GAGE O’GRADY, B.A., J.D.
Professor of Law
SIGMUND POPKO, B.A., J.D.
Clinical Professor of Law
KATHERINE A. PUZAUSKAS, J.D.
Supervising Legal Clinic Attorney
JONATHAN ROSE, B.A., LL.B.
Emeritus Professor of Law;
Faculty Fellow, Center for Law, Science &
Innovation
MARY SIGLER, B.A., M.A., J.D., PH.D.
Associate Dean of Faculty; Professor of
Law; Willard H. Pedrick Distinguished
Research Scholar
RODNEY K. SMITH, B.A., J.D.; L.L.M.; S.J.D.
Professor of Practice
ANN M. STANTON, B.A., PH.D., J.D.
Professor of Law; Faculty Fellow, Center
for Law, Science & Innovation
YVONNE STEVENS, B.A., LL.B.; LL.M.
Instructor
JUDITH M. STINSON, B.S., J.D.
Associate Dean of Academic Affairs;
Clinical Professor of Law
VICTORIA TROTTA, B.A., M.L.S.; J.D.
Associate Dean of the Ross-Blakley Law
Library
REBECCA TSOSIE, B.A., J.D.
Regents’ Professor of Law; Vice Provost
for Inclusion and Community Engagement;
Professor of Law, Indian Legal Program;
Faculty Fellow, Center for Law and Global
Affairs; Distinguished Sustainability Scientist,
Global Institute of Sustainability; Affiliate
Professor, American Indian Studies Program;
Affiliate Professor, Mary Lou Fulton Teacher’s
College
BONNIE P. TUCKER, B.S., J.D.
Emeritus Professor of Law
JAMES WEINSTEIN, B.A., J.D.
Amelia Lewis Professor of Constitutional
Law; Faculty Fellow, Center for Law, Science &
Innovation; Associate Fellow, Centre for Public
Law, University of Cambridge
TROY ARTHUR RULE, B.S., J.D.
Faculty Director, Program on Law and
MICHAEL J. WHITE, B.A., M.A., C. PHIL., PH.D.
Sustainability; Associate Professor of Law;
Professor of Law and Philosophy
Senior Sustainability Scholar, Global Institute of
Sustainability; Faculty Fellow, Center for Law, MONIQUE B. WILHITE, B.A., J.D.
Science & Innovation
Instructor
MICHAEL J. SAKS, B.S., B.A., M.A., PH.D.,
M.S.L.
Regent’s Professor of Law and
Psychology; Faculty Fellow, Center for Law,
Science & Innovation
ERIN A. SCHARFF, B.A., J.D.
Associate Professor of Law
GEORGE SCHATZKI, A.B., LL.M., L.L.B.
Emeritus Professor of Law
MILTON R. SCHROEDER, B.A., J.D.
Emeritus Professor of Law
LAURENCE H. WINER, B.A., M.A., PH.D., J.D.
Professor of Law; Faculty Fellow, Center
for Law, Science & Innovation
ROSELLE WISSLER, B.A., M.A., PH.D.
Research Director, Lodestar Dispute
Resolution Program; Faculty Fellow, Center for
the Study of Law, Science & Innovation
EDITOR INTRODUCTION
The 2015 Law Journal for Social Justice Symposium, “Contemporary
Discrimination” focused on current concerns regarding civil rights and
civil liberty. Discussions ranged from the political legislative process,
resistance in enforcement of civil rights judgments, and sexual orientation
employment discrimination. Panelists included politicians, scholars from
diverse backgrounds, practicing attorneys and community organizers.
Drawing on broader considerations, this issue features articles
analyzing an array of concerns in the criminal, civil and international
tribunals. The first article, You Have Your Whole Life in Front of
You…Behind Bars, written by Rachel Forman, beings this issue by
discussing a need to ban life without parole sentences for juvenile nonhomicide offenders. Inalvis M. Zubiaur, in Death Row: Mentally
Impaired Inmates and the Appeal Process, continues the focus on
sentencing by engaging concerns regarding capital punishment. Next, in
Injection and the Right of Access, Timothy F. Brown argues for increased
access to lethal injection procedures to understand its constitutionality.
Shifting consideration to the civil sphere, Victor D. Lopez & Eugene T.
Maccarrone raise issues about privacy, due process, public policy and the
basic fairness of traffic enforcement by camera, in Traffic Enforcement by
Camera. Beginning the focus on international concerns, Fictitious
Labeling, by Efe Ukala, discusses “recommendations that may help curb
constitutional issues resulting from deportation.” Brittany Fink, in
Increase Quota, Invite Opportunities, Improve Economy, proposes
amendments to the DREAM Act that extend the path to citizenship.”
Katharine Villalobos then focuses on the sociology of immigration in The
Crucible, using historical examples to discuss the War on Terror. Falling
Through the Cracks by Marissa N. Goldberg changes the focus to
international law and unique considerations of women in the drug trade
industry. Finally, Seeking Truth in the Balkans by Erin K. Lovall and June
E. Vutrano concludes the issue by discussing the role of international law
in seeking justice following the wars in the Balkans. Together these
articles analyze issues that raise important questions about fairness and
civil rights in the domestic and international contexts.
Special thanks to the entire staff of the Law Journal for Social Justice,
who helped create this edition.
Kristyne Schaaf-Olson
2014-2015 Editor-in-Chief
The Law Journal for Social Justice
THE CRUCIBLE: OLD NOTIONS OF HYSTERIA IN
MODERN AMERICA
By Katharine Villalobos*
[I]t was simply impossible to discuss what was happening
to us in contemporary terms. We were all going slightly
crazy . . . the hysteria in Salem had a certain inner
procedure or several which were duplicating once again . . .
[a]nd that’s how the play came to be.
-- Arthur Miller, on The Crucible1
Introduction
Playwright Arthur Miller’s connection to witch hunts goes far beyond
writing a play about the Salem Witch Trials—he lived through one. True,
Miller was not alive in 1692 when hysteria2 over witchcraft led to nineteen
men and women being hanged and one man being pressed to death.3
However, for Miller, writing a play about the Salem Witch Trials was a
creative expression of his experience during Senator Joseph McCarthy’s
hunt for communists during the Cold War of the early 1950s. Instead of
accusations of bewitching, dancing, and flying on broomsticks, Senator
McCarthy accused men and women of being members of the American
Communist party.4 These accused Americans were summoned to the
House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) to make public
confessions about their communist views and to offer the names of
* J.D., Emory University School of Law (2015); Executive Special Content Editor,
Emory International Law Review (2014–2015); Emory International Law Review Red
Pen Award for Best Editor (2014). The author is grateful to her husband, Ryan Andrews,
for being her editor, unconditional supporter, and best friend. She thanks her parents for
their support and encouragement, and Professor Martha Grace Duncan at Emory
University School of Law for her guidance and feedback.
1
Christopher Bigsby, Introduction to ARTHUR MILLER, THE CRUCIBLE xi, vii
(Penguin Books 2003) (1953).
2
It should be noted that here and throughout this paper, the word “hysteria” is being
used as a layman’s term, and not as a psychological term of art. Therefore, I am using the
word “hysteria” as it is defined in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: “a situation in which
many people behave or react in an extreme or uncontrolled way because of fear, anger,
etc.” Hysteria, MERRIAM-WEBSTER: DICTIONARY, http://www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary/hysteria (last visited June 22, 2015).
3
See Christopher Bigsby, Introduction to ARTHUR MILLER, THE CRUCIBLE, supra
note 1, at vii.
4
Id. at x.
Spring, 2015
THE CRUCIBLE
203
others.5 Witnesses who were uncooperative often lost their jobs.6 With
reputations and careers at stake, many of Miller’s friends and colleagues
were among those who confessed their communist affiliations and named
other communists.7 On June 6, 1956, Miller himself was called before
HUAC and refused to name communists.8 Fear and hysteria were in the
air. Anyone could be accused—but rather than shrinking in fear, Miller
began to research a familiar stain in the nation’s past. 9 He traveled to
Salem to research the infamous Salem Witch Trials.10 Noting the parallels
between Senator McCarthy’s hunt for American communists and the
witch hunt in Salem, Miller wrote a play about the dangers of American
fear and panic: The Crucible.
Although Miller was open about the influence that the McCarthy
witch hunts had on the play, Miller nonetheless insisted that McCarthyism
was not the theme of The Crucible.11 Miller was less concerned with the
court proceedings than he was with the fear and motivations behind
them.12 His focus, then, was not McCarthyism specifically, but rather on
the phenomenon of hysteria. In his article Hysteria and Ideology, in The
Crucible, Richard Hayes nicely summarizes what Miller achieves in
writing this play:
With the Salem witchcraft trials of 1692 as a moral frame
and point of departure, Mr. Miller has gone on to examine
the permanent conditions of the climate of hysteria . . . as
one of the few severely irrational eruptions American
society has witnessed, it retains still its primitive power to
compel the attention.13
Another scholar, Leonard Moss, wrote that Miller’s “concern was
mass hysteria: He wished to show . . . what its social and psychological
consequences might be; and how it must be averted.”14 By broadening the
theme to hysteria, as opposed to narrowing it to a specific historical event,
5
Id.
Id. at xii.
7
Id.
8
Andrew Glass, Arthur Miller Testifies Before HUAC, June 21, 1956, POLITICO
(June 21, 2013, 5:03 AM), http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/this-day-in-politics93127.html.
9
See Christopher Bigsby, Introduction to ARTHUR MILLER, THE CRUCIBLE, supra
note 1, at xii.
10
Id.
11
SUSAN C. W. ABBOTSON, CRITICAL COMPANION TO ARTHUR MILLER 115 (2007).
12
Id.
13
Richard Hayes, Hysteria and Ideology, in The Crucible, in TWENTIETH CENTURY
INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CRUCIBLE 32, 32 (John H. Ferres ed., 1972).
14
Leonard Moss, A “Social Play”, in TWENTIETH CENTURY INTERPRETATIONS OF
THE CRUCIBLE 37, 37–38 (John H. Ferres ed., 1972).
6
204
LAW JOURNAL FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
Vol. 5
Miller allows his play the flexibility to be rejuvenated throughout the
decades. The Crucible does not only serve to say “shame on you,
McCarthy-ism,” but rather has the ability to prompt society to challenge
the status quo. In both historical situations of the Salem Witch Trials and
the McCarthy questionings, the hysteria eventually fizzled out and the
American people recognized the absurdity of these witch-hunts. Indeed, it
is easy for modern Americans to look back at the McCarthy Era and the
Salem Witch Trials and wonder how people could have been so consumed
by their fear of a singled-out group. But how far has America really come
since these events? If Miller were a young playwright today, would he still
be inspired to write The Crucible?
After analyzing the treatment of Muslims following the September
11, 2001 terrorist attacks, this paper will show that Miller would have no
shortage of inspiration to write The Crucible today. Like the witch-hunt in
The Crucible and the Communist hunt of the McCarthy Era, the War on
Terror has succeeded in singling out a specific group of people with
foreign beliefs—in this case, Muslims—and disregarding that group’s
human rights in the name of national security. Of course, this paper’s
intent is not to minimize, in any way, the horrors of the 9/11 attacks or of
terrorism as a whole. Rather, this paper looks to the rash decisions that are
brought forth when an entire population of people is stigmatized as a result
of crimes committed by a small fraction of that population. By putting the
same emphasis on fear that the accusers of The Crucible utilized when
condemning witches, the United States government has managed to
convince the public that it should waive its rights to privacy and ignore the
due process rights of certain Muslims. Furthermore, the government has
justified the harsh treatment and arbitrary detainment of hundreds of
Muslims in the name of public safety. With these modern injustices in
mind, this paper will look back to the characters in The Crucible to
analyze the ever-occurring phenomenon of hysteria.
Part I will provide context for the rest of the paper by briefly
summarizing The Crucible as well as America’s response to the 9/11
terror attacks. This will establish a common theme of paranoia15 and fear
of the unknown. Part II will compare the problems of evidence and lack of
due process in The Crucible and the War on Terror. Part III will examine
the importance of confession in The Crucible, along with the methods
15
In the context of this paper, the term “paranoia” is being used in the layman’s
sense, not as a psychological term of art. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines
paranoia as “a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or
irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others.” Paranoia, MERRIAM-WEBSTER:
DICTIONARY, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paranoia (last visited June 22,
2015).
Spring, 2015
THE CRUCIBLE
205
used for questioning accused witches. This will lead to a comparison with
modern interrogation tactics used on suspected terrorists. Part IV will
explore what society is willing to sacrifice for the sake of being safe by
looking to the events in Salem and post 9/11 America. Ultimately, this
paper will conclude that over fifty years later, The Crucible is still
providing us with a contemporary critique on society.
I.
MILLER’S PLAY ABOUT THE PAST AND PRESENT
PREDICTS AMERICA’S FUTURE
When Miller wrote The Crucible, he was drawing from Salem’s past
to comment on the present. At the time, the present was the Cold War of
the early 1950s. What Miller may not have foreseen was that The Crucible
would serve as a commentary on American society throughout the
following century. To illustrate this commentary, Section A offers a short
summary of The Crucible and Section B presents a summary of America’s
reaction to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Section C will establish the common
themes between these two witch-hunts.
A. The Crucible a Summary
In adapting the events of the Salem Witch Trials into a play, Miller
did not necessarily remain true to history.16 For instance, rather than
characterizing all of the judges involved in the trials, Miller focuses only
on Judge Hathorne and Judge Danforth.17 For dramatic purposes, Miller
raises Abigail’s age from 11 to 17, and lowers John Proctor’s age from 60
to 35.18 This allows for another dramatic element of the play: the fictional
affair between John Proctor and Abigail.19 The play also adjusts the order
of certain executions.20 However, other important historical aspects, such
as the form of execution endured by each character, are portrayed
accurately in the play.21 Because this paper solely seeks to compare
Miller’s critique on society in The Crucible with the modern War on
Terror, this paper will not focus on the actual history of the Salem Witch
Trials.
16
Christopher Bigsby, Introduction to ARTHUR MILLER, THE CRUCIBLE, supra note
1, at xiv.
17
ARTHUR MILLER, THE CRUCIBLE 2 (Penguin Books 2003) (1953).
18
Christopher Bigsby, Introduction to ARTHUR MILLER, THE CRUCIBLE, supra note
1, at xiv.
19
Id.
20
Id.
21
Id.
206
LAW JOURNAL FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
Vol. 5
The Crucible, set in 1692 Salem, Massachusetts, begins in the home
of a holy man—by title, at least.22 Reverend Samuel Parris is praying by
his daughter’s bedside, desperately wondering how his ten-year-old could
have taken ill so suddenly.23 Miller establishes the guilt embedded into the
consciousness of turn of the seventeenth century Salem by describing
Parris as a man who “believed he was being persecuted wherever he
went.”24 He further foreshadows the hysteria to come by explaining that
the people of Salem had a “predilection for minding other people’s
business . . . and it undoubtedly created many of the suspicions which
were to feed the coming madness.”25 Ironically, Parris initially appears as
a voice of logic and reason. He immediately appeals to a doctor to find a
cure for his sick daughter, Betty.26 However, when the doctor cannot
explain Betty’s ailment through science, the doctor resorts to blaming
“unnatural things” for the girl’s condition.27 Frightened, Parris remembers
that he had recently discovered Betty “dancing like heathen” with his
seventeen year-old niece, Abigail, and the enslaved Barbadian woman,
Tituba.28 Abigail staunchly asserts that she and her cousin were dancing
innocently and were not participating in witchcraft.29 Here begins the
springboard from which hysteria ensued and twenty people were killed.
Meanwhile, the audience of the play learns that Abigail has been
having an affair with the man she worked for, John Proctor. Proctor’s wife
is no fool; Elizabeth Proctor dismisses Abigail from the Proctor home
once she becomes wise to the affair.30 Elizabeth even avoids Abigail by
failing to attend church, “for she will not sit so close to something
soiled.”31 Abigail denies that she is “soiled” and condemns Elizabeth as a
liar.32
In no time, the possibility that Betty’s illness was caused by
witchcraft transforms into the rumor that several children were murdered
by witches.33 In order to hide the fact that she really did partake in
witchcraft, Abigail begins to accuse others of the crime.34 Eventually, she
22
See MILLER, supra note 17, at 3.
Id. at 3, 8.
24
Id. at 3.
25
Id. at 4.
26
Id. at 8.
27
Id. at 9.
28
MILLER, supra note 17, at 9.
29
Id. at 10.
30
Id. at 11.
31
Id.
32
Id.
33
Id. at 15.
34
MILLER, supra note 17, at 20, 40.
23
Spring, 2015
THE CRUCIBLE
207
accuses Elizabeth of being a witch.35 This accomplishes a twofold goal for
Abigail: preserving her own innocence while removing any obstacle from
her relationship with Proctor.
Proctor, however, does not take this lightly. Even after an intense
interrogation by Reverend John Hale, an expert on witchcraft, 36 Proctor
resolves to save his wife from condemnation.37 He introduces a familiar
form of discovery evidence into the court when he presents a deposition of
his servant girl, Mary Warren, in which she states that she, and the other
girls who cried out over witchcraft, were lying. 38 This deposition is not
only meant to save his own wife, but also the wives of old Giles Corey and
of the formerly respected Francis Nurse. To his horror, Proctor’s attempts
to prove his wife’s innocence are met with more accusations. 39 Any
attempt that Proctor, Giles, or Francis make to defend their wives is
perceived as “a clear attack upon the court!”40 Even Reverend Hale, who
originally interrogated the Proctors out of suspicion, sees the irrationality
of the court and begs the judge to allow Proctor to return to court with an
attorney.41 This too is seen as a challenge to the court.42
In a desperate attempt to discredit Abigail’s accusations, Proctor
reveals his affair with Abigail to the court. But when his wife Elizabeth is
later brought in for questioning, she unknowingly contradicts his
testimony.43 The trial is further agitated by the wild claims of Abigail,
Mary Warren, and Susanna Walcott that evil spirits are appearing in the
courtroom.44 This hysterical scene leads to the condemnation of Proctor
and Giles.
In the final act of the play, the audience finds a bearded and
disheveled Proctor in jail. He is about to be executed, but he can avoid his
death sentence if he confesses to practicing witchcraft.45 Hale begs him to
swallow his pride and confess. Proctor finally agrees to confess verbally to
Judge Danforth and Reverend Parris—but the confession is not
sufficient.46 Parris insists that Proctor sign a confession to be made public
35
Id. at 69.
Id. at 62-63.
37
Id. at 76.
38
Id. at 82.
39
Id. at 84-85.
40
MILLER, supra note 17, at 87.
41
Id. at 92.
42
Id.
43
Id. at 102–05.
44
Id. at 107.
45
Id. at 118.
46
MILLER, supra note 17, at 128.
36
208
LAW JOURNAL FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
Vol. 5
in Salem.47 Proctor signs the confession, but just as quickly snatches it
away and tears it.48 When asked why he refuses to publically confess,
Proctor exclaims:
Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in
my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am
not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may
I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave
me my name!49
When Reverend Hale implores Elizabeth to change her husband’s mind,
she responds, “He will have his goodness now. God Forbid I take it from
him!” Proctor is executed offstage and the play ends.50
B. America’s War on Terror
Fast forward to September 11, 2001. Two thousand seven hundred
and fifty three innocent people are dead after terrorists flew two planes
into the towers of the World Trade Center.51 Thirty are dead after an attack
on the Pentagon.52 Forty people aboard Flight 93 give their lives resisting
a terror attack that is meant to target the nation’s capital.53 America is sad,
confused, and angry. Nine days later, President George W. Bush tells
Congress, “every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make.
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists . . . . Whether we
bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be
done.”54 Bush’s public approval skyrocketed from less than sixty percent
to almost ninety percent.55 Congress voted to “grant President Bush
authority to ‘use all necessary and appropriate force’” against the
terrorists.56
The Bush administration began instilling paranoia into the American
people. Three months after 9/11, in his State of the Union Address, Bush
47
Id. at 131.
Id.
49
Id. at 133.
50
Id.
51
9/11 by the Numbers, Death, Destruction, Charity, Salvation, Way, Money, Real
Estate, Spouses, Babies, and Other September 11 Statistics, NYMAG.COM, http://ny
mag.com/news/articles/wtc/1year/numbers.htm (last updated Sept. 2014).
52
Pentagon Victims, WASH. POST, http://projects.washingtonpost.com/911victims/
pentagon/ (last visited June 22, 2014).
53
Flight 93 National Memorial, NAT. PARK SERVICE, http://www.nps.gov/flni/
index.htm (last updated June 17, 2015).
54
EUGENE SECUNDA & TERENCE P. MORAN, SELLING THE WAR TO AMERICA 146
(2007).
55
Id. at 147.
56
Id.
48
Spring, 2015
THE CRUCIBLE
209
stated that the war on terror was “only the beginning” and told the
American people that Iran, Iraq, and North Korea “constitute an axis of
evil.”57 Bush gave Americans more reason to be fearful when he warned
that Saddam Hussein could attack at any moment with chemical or
biological warfare.58 This would become the justification for invading Iraq
in addition to invading Afghanistan.59
Fear of terrorism also sparked an influx of immigration enforcement.
Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine issued a report in
early 2003, which indicates that 762 undocumented immigrants were
arrested following 9/11.60 However, few of these immigrants actually had
clear associations to terrorism.61 Most of these immigrants were of
Middle Eastern decent.62 The initial cause for their arrest was their
immigration status, but this would lead to questions about their ties to
terrorism.63 According to the report, detainees at the Metropolitan
Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York experienced physical and verbal
abuse from correctional officers.64 Detainees were also subjected to harsh
conditions such as having their cells kept illuminated twenty-four hours a
day.65
In addition, hundreds of prisoners were captured and taken to the
United States military base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Guantánamo
housed nearly 700 prisoners by the summer of 2003, including more than
one child under the age of sixteen.66 The United States refused to release
the identity of the prisoners for national security reasons. 67 For the first
few months of incarceration, these prisoners were met with extremely
harsh conditions. The cells were made of wire mesh and measured at
57
Id. at 148.
Id.
59
See Scott Ritter, For Bush – and Obama – a Gut Check, THE GUARDIAN (Dec. 2,
2008 4:30 PM), http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/02/
george-bush-iraq-wmd.
60
ROBERT RAPLEY, WITCH HUNTS: FROM SALEM TO GUANTÁNAMO BAY 228 (2007).
In this book, Rapley spends each chapter detailing witch-hunts from the seventeenth
century leading up to the present day War on Terror. By analyzing several witch hunts
throughout history, Rapley argues that there are certain commonalities to all “witch
hunts.” My article differs in that it specifically compares the Salem Witch Trials as
depicted in a creative form of expression—in this case, The Crucible—with the War on
Terror.
61
Id. at 228.
62
Id. at 230.
63
Id.
64
Id.
65
RAPLEY, supra note 60, at 230.
66
Id. at 234.
67
Id.
58
210
LAW JOURNAL FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
Vol. 5
about six and a half by eight feet in size.68 A wooden roof covered the
cells, but the sides remained open to the elements of Cuba’s tropical
weather.69 They were taken outside once a week for a one-minute
shower.70 Conditions later improved when new cells were built, but
remained harsh as the cells were still cramped and prisoners’ opportunities
to exercise were limited.71
Lack of due process became a huge concern. These prisoners had no
access to attorneys and the vast majority had not even been charged with a
crime.72 By 2006, only four men had been charged with a crime.73 As of
2013, 166 detainees remained in Guantánamo Bay.74 Of them, 56 have
been approved for release since 2009, yet remain imprisoned.75 When
asked about this, Pentagon spokesman Todd Breasseale replied,
The internal deliberation process is just that—internal—and
we simply do not discuss the myriad considerations the
secretary of defense may or may not contemplate. We are
committed to transferring those we can transfer, once we
have the requisite security and humane treatment
assurances from the receiving country.76
This vague response means little to men like Shaker Aamer, who has been
detained for eleven years in Guantánamo without being charged with a
crime.77 He is one of those who have been cleared to leave since 2009.78
It is worth considering whether American fear of terrorism is a
legitimate justification for the use of military force and imprisoning
potentially innocent men. Arthur Miller’s play, The Crucible, will help us
consider this.
C. The War on Terror Through Miller’s Eyes
Throughout The Crucible, the courts are faced with crimes from the
invisible world: spiritual acts with demonic influence. While
68
Id.
Id.
70
Id.
71
RAPLEY, supra note 60, at 234.
72
Id. at 235.
73
Id.
74
Phil Hirschkorn, 11 Years in Guantánamo Without Trials or Charges, CBS NEWS
(May 31, 2013, 6:35 PM), http://www.cbsnews.com/news/11-years-in-Guantánamowithout-trial-or-charges/.
75
Id.
76
Id.
77
Id.
78
Id.
69
Spring, 2015
THE CRUCIBLE
211
contemporary courtrooms are no longer considering demonic dancing as a
murder weapon, one legal writer asked, “what if the invisible world is still
there, not necessarily inhabited by the Devil, but by more modern
demons?”79 Perhaps the fear of witchcraft in Miller’s play could shed light
on Americans’ fear of Islamic faith and culture.
From the outset of the play, John Proctor represents the counterpart to
Salem’s culture of blind fear. In his article Hysteria and Ideology in The
Crucible, Richard Hayes describes Proctor as “so patently the enemy of
hysteria that his very existence is a challenge to the fanatic
temperament.”80 Miller makes this evident throughout the play as Proctor
challenges the other characters’ tendency to focus on opportunities to be
fearful rather than opportunities to trust. This is most evident in the
townspeople’s fixation on Satan as opposed to God. The voices of reason
in the play try to direct the community’s attention to the latter. When
Reverend Parris criticizes Proctor for failing to come to church, Proctor
replies, “I have trouble enough without I come five mile to hear him
preach only hellfire and bloody damnation . . . you hardly ever mention
God anymore.”81 Another voice of reason in the play, Rebecca Nurse, also
suggests that it is more reasonable to look to God than focusing on evil
spirits when Ruth exclaims that the doctor is baffled by Betty’s illness.82
“If so he is,” Rebecca replies, “then let us go to God for the cause of it.
There is prodigious danger in the seeking of loose spirits . . . . Let us rather
blame ourselves.”83 In elevating Proctor and Rebecca as forces of good in
the play,84 Miller emphasizes the evil that arises when decisions are
motivated solely by fear of the unknown.
For the people of Salem, witchcraft is a scary and foreign practice. In
the play, Abigail engages in witchcraft led by Titibua, a woman enslaved
by Reverend Parris. While Tituba’s role in the play is small, the
significance of her origin is key to the people’s perception of magic. Her
dark skin and Barbadian decent85 associate her with the tropics—a humid
79
Peter Charles Hoffer, Invisible Worlds and Criminal Trials The Cases of John
Proctor and O.J. Simpson, 41 AM. J. LEGAL HIST. 287, 291 (1997).
80
Richard Hayes, Hysteria and Ideology, in The Crucible, in TWENTIETH CENTURY
INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CRUCIBLE , supra note 13, at 32, 33.
81
MILLER, supra note 17, at 27.
82
Id. at 26.
83
Id.
84
ABBOTSON, supra note 11, at 115. In her book, Abbotson explains that: “The
Crucible exposes the extent to which many people use troubled times, such as the trials,
to pursue selfish ends. In contrast to these types, Miller elevates and celebrates people of
individual conscience, such as the Nurses, the Coreys, and the Proctors, who refuse to do
this.” Id.
85
As stated, this paper only seeks to analyze the characters in The Crucible, not the
actual historical occurrence of the Salem Witch Trials. However, it bears noting that the
212
LAW JOURNAL FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
Vol. 5
and sticky place by the ocean where people wear less clothing and worship
pagan gods. She comes from a sinful place. As a slave, she is not viewed
as a person. Yet, Tituba is believed to have the power to communicate
with the dead.86 This lack of personage combined with her unique spiritual
powers puts Tituba into an unknown, mystic category of being that the
people of Salem do not understand. Any association to this unknown
category is met with condemnation.
To avoid being associated with it herself, Abigail accuses others of
practicing Tituba’s witchcraft.87 Specifically, she accuses Elizabeth
Proctor of keeping “poppets” and stabbing one with a needle to inflict
harm on Abigail.88 There is no dissociating oneself from these practices
once accused; Mary Warren confessed that she gave Elizabeth the poppet
that was found in her possession only to be asked, “Child, are you certain
this be your natural memory? May it be, perhaps, that someone conjures
real Tituba was not recorded as being of Barbadian decent, and she was accused of
fortune telling—not voodoo magic. She was identified in court as an Indian woman, but
because she was enslaved, historians are limited in determining her background.
Throughout the evolution of Salem tales, Tituba has been categorized in texts as a
“‘Negro,’ ‘half-breed,’ ‘colored,’ or ‘half-Indian, half-Negro.’” Alyssa Barillari,
Important Persons in Salem Court Records: Tituba, SALEM WITCH TRIALS
DOCUMENTARY ARCHIVE & TRANSCRIPTIONS PROJECT, http://salem.lib.virginia.edu/
people?group.num=all&mbio.num=mb29 (last visited June 22. 2015). The University of
Virginia has a website dedicated to archiving the history of the Salem Witch Trials, and
provides a brief summary of what is known about Tituba’s background:
What we do know from the historical documents is that Tituba was in
fact a slave in the Parris home at the time of Betty and Abigail's initial
sufferings. Tradition holds that she was married to another slave, John
Indian, and the couple was purchased by Reverend Parris during time
he spent in Barbados. Tradition, however, does not a history make.
Tituba and John Indian did reside with the Parrises; Samuel Parris had
a plantation in Barbados, and he owned two slaves after he returned to
Boston, and she could have come from Barbados. However, the story
that Tituba struck the "fatal spark" and ignited simmering tensions in
Salem Village by enthralling the local teenage girls with her stories of
African or Caribbean voodoo and magic spells must be recognized for
what it is—a story. It was not her "voodoo spells and stories" which, in
fact, caused the girls' initial hysterics but their practice of forbidden
fortune telling.
Nowhere in the court records or contemporary accounts is Tituba said
to have taught the practice of fortune telling to the girls in Rev Parris'
house. The fortune telling technique that the girls' used, as reported by
one of them to the Rev. John Hale, was an egg white in a glass of
water. This was a commonly known device in New England at the
time, and it was condemned by the Puritans as a demonic practice. Id.
86
MILLER, supra note 17, at 15.
87
Id. at 70.
88
Id.
Spring, 2015
THE CRUCIBLE
213
you even now to say this?”89 The fear of witchcraft is a fear that will not
be silenced by things like lack of evidence.
Once witchcraft was raised as a possibility for the murder of children,
it became sensible to blame all wrong on it. Giles Corey illustrates this as
he reasons, “It suggests to the mind what the trouble be among us all these
years. To all: Think on it. Wherefore is everybody suing everybody else? .
. . I have been six time in court this year.”90 To which Proctor humorously
replies, “Is it the Devil’s fault that a man cannot say you good morning
without you clap him for defamation?”91 Reverend Parris exhibits similar
paranoia when he accuses Proctor of having his own followers: “There is a
party in this church. I am not blind; there is a faction and a party.”92
Proctor again replies with humor: “Against you? . . . Why, then I must find
it and join it.”93
The juxtaposition between Proctor’s humor and the others’ paranoia
over witchcraft emphasizes the abstract nature of the townspeople’s terror.
Because of Proctor’s actions, the audience watching The Crucible knows
that the idea that witchcraft is to blame for all of Salem’s hardships is
silly. As one author said, “It is imaginative terror Mr. Miller is here
invoking: not solid gallows and the rope appall him, but the closed and
suffocating world of the fanatic, against which intellect and will are
powerless.”94
A similar atmosphere of paranoia has been generated against Muslims
in the United States. The War on Terror, or as some scholars have
described it, “a war against an abstract noun,”95 has cast Muslims as
America’s scapegoats. Like the witchcraft that Tituba brings into Salem,
Islam is a practice that comes from a foreign place with a perceived
potential to inflict immense suffering. Of course, while the 9/11 attacks
were done in the name of Islam, it should be noted that these destructive
practices are only encouraged in extreme fundamentalist Islamic circles
such as Al-Qa‘ida, the vast majority of Muslims do not engage nor believe
in these violent practices.96 However, many Muslims outside of AlQa‘ida—whether an uncharged detainee at Guantánamo Bay or a Muslim
89
Id. at 72.
Id. at 29.
91
MILLER, supra note 17, at 29.
92
Id.
93
Id.
94
Richard Hayes, Hysteria and Ideology, in The Crucible, in TWENTIETH CENTURY
INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CRUCIBLE , supra note 13, at 32.
95
David Fisher & Brian Wicker, Introduction: A Clash of Civilizations?, in JUST
WAR ON TERROR? 1, 3 (David Fisher & Brian Wicker eds., 2010).
96
Ahmad Achtar, Challenging Al-Qa’ida’s Justification of Terror, in JUST WAR ON
TERROR? 25, 25 (David Fisher & Brian Wicker eds., 2010).
90
214
LAW JOURNAL FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
Vol. 5
New Yorker being spied on by the NYPD—have nonetheless been
deemed threats to national security.97
President Bush’s portrayal of the War on Terror as a battle between the
Christian West and the evil Middle East make the situation alarmingly
similar to that in The Crucible. Ethicist Peter Singer analyzed President
Bush’s morality, and found that Bush talked about evil in 319 speeches
between the time he assumed office in 2000 and June 16, 2003.98 Singer
notes that Bush used the word evil as a noun 914 times, as opposed to the
182 times he used it as an adjective.99 For example, about a month after
9/11, Bush stated, “We are at the beginning of what I view as a very long
struggle against evil. We’re not fighting a nation; we’re not fighting a
religion; we’re fighting evil.”100 In another speech, Bush contrasts this
notion of evil by borrowing a description from the New Testament book of
John: “America is the hope for all of mankind . . . . That hope still lights
our way. And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness will not
overcome it.”101 Here, Bush is associating America with Jesus Christ. In
doing this, Bush assures Americans that they are fighting on God’s side to
overcome the evil in the Middle East.102
In both The Crucible and the War on Terror, the stage was set for
public fear. As the next portions of this paper will show, the results of that
fear have led to a diminution of human rights for foreigners as well as
Americans.
II.
STRATEGIC MECHANISMS
There are two primary strategic mechanisms used by the characters in
The Crucible to avoid hanging: the preemptive mechanism of accusing
others of a crime before being personally accused, and the post-accusation
mechanism of presenting evidence of their innocence. The preemptive
mechanism is effective, whereas the post-accusation method of providing
evidence fails. In terms of eyewitness testimony, the court in The Crucible
encounters a he-said-she-said problem of one person’s word against the
other. Even so, the judges are not alarmed by the accusers’ lack of
97
See RAPLEY, supra note 60, at 234; Farhana Khera, Muslims in America, It’s Time
to Demand Justice, CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/06/opinion/khera-muslims-nypd/
(last updated June 6, 2012).
98
Richard Lock-Pullan, Challenging the Political Theology of America’s ‘War on
Terror’, in JUST WAR ON TERROR? 37, 39 (David Fisher & Brian Wicker eds., 2010).
99
Id. at 39–40.
100
Id. at 40.
101
Id. at 42.
102
Id. at 43.
Spring, 2015
THE CRUCIBLE
215
evidence. Legal protocol is pushed aside to accomplish the greater good of
punishing evil and protecting the good.
Modern terror suspects encounter similar problems. The majority of
prisoners in Guantánamo Bay remain unaware of their crime or evidence
against them for reasons of national security, thus throwing due process
out the window.103 Any sympathy shown to suspects can be interpreted as
guilt.104 Like the prisoners in The Crucible, terror suspects sit in their cells
as a precaution against potential attacks.
Section A. of this part of the paper will explore the idea of preemptive
accusations in The Crucible and in America’s War on Terror. Section B
will critique both The Crucible’s and the current United States
Government’s disregard for evidence and due process when condemning
individuals. Ultimately, the analysis will show that Arthur Miller’s
concerns about American society still hold true today.
A. Preemptive Defense: Accuse to Preserve Innocence
In his introduction to Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, Christopher
Bigsby explains the phenomenon of blaming others to preserve one’s own
innocence:
What lay behind the procedures of both witch trial and
political hearing was a familiar American need to assert a
recoverable innocence even if the only guarantee of such
innocence lay in the displacement of guilt onto others.105
With this in mind, a resounding theme throughout The Crucible is
betrayal.106 A chain of accusations occurs from the beginning of the play.
First, Reverend Parris accuses Abigail of conjuring spirits after he sees her
dancing with Betty in the forest.107 Abigail begins defending herself by
denying the accusation, but to no avail; Parris knows what he saw.108
When Abigail is asked again if she conjured spirits, she shifts to a new
strategy. “Not I sir,” Abigail replies, “Tituba and Ruth [Putnam].”109 Parris
is still skeptical, but is encouraged by Thomas Putnam to believe Abigail.
Furthermore, Putnam encourages Parris to follow Abigail’s strategy by
reporting the witchcraft: “Wait for no one to charge you—declare it
103
See The Guantánamo Trials, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, http://www.hrw.org/
features/Guantánamo (last visited June 22, 2015).
104
RAPLEY, supra note 60, at 232.
105
Christopher Bigsby, Introduction to ARTHUR MILLER, THE CRUCIBLE, supra note
1, at xi.
106
Id.
107
MILLER, supra note 17, at 9.
108
Id. at 10.
109
Id. at 15.
216
LAW JOURNAL FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
Vol. 5
yourself.”110 Putnam goes on to tell Parris, “Let you strike out against the
Devil, and the village will bless you for it!”111
At this point, Abigail realizes that her only hope for escaping
conviction is to continue to put the blame on others. When Mary Warren,
one of the girls present at the conjuring, tells Abigail that they must
confess, Abigail threatens, “I will come to you in the black of some
terrible night and I will bring a pointy reckoning that will shudder you.”112
The chain of accusation continues with Tituba and Ruth, who name others
in the community. Tituba is rewarded for naming others when she is told
that God will bless her for her confession.113 Her accusations protect her
from the noose.
John Proctor challenges the mentality that the accuser is inherently
innocent when his wife, Elizabeth, is accused of witchcraft. As Reverend
Hale explains that Abigail has accused Elizabeth, Proctor asks “Why do
you never wonder if Parris be innocent, or Abigail? Is the accuser always
holy now?”114 Reverend Hale’s only reply is that “the court is just,”
meaning that Elizabeth will surely be acquitted if she is truly innocent.115
But Hale is wrong—true innocence does not save Elizabeth. As Abigail
learned early on in the play, it is not enough to deny participation in
witchcraft. One must accuse another in order to appear truly innocent.
The reasoning that lies behind the idea that the accuser is innocent is
tied to the notion that to accuse is to acknowledge the existence of a crime.
In this view, one who fails to acknowledge the existence of a crime cannot
understand justice. In 1692 Salem, where the court’s justice and God’s
justice are one in the same, denying the existence of witchcraft is to deny
the existence of God.116 Elizabeth Proctor makes this mistake when she is
first interrogated by Reverend Hale. “If you think that I am [a witch],”
Elizabeth says, “then I say there are none.”117 Reverend Hale interprets
this statement as Elizabeth doubting the Gospel.118 Elizabeth cannot prove
that she believes the existence of witches by calling Abigail a liar—that
would only serve to lessen the possibility of witches existing. No, she
must accuse another of witchcraft to establish her Christian faith. Because
she cannot do this, Elizabeth is condemned to hanging.
110
Id.
Id. at 16.
112
Id. at 19.
113
MILLER, supra note 17, at 43.
114
Id. at 73.
115
Id.
116
See Christopher Bigsby, Introduction to ARTHUR MILLER, THE CRUCIBLE, supra
note 1, at xi.
117
MILLER, supra note 17, at 66.
118
Id.
111
Spring, 2015
THE CRUCIBLE
217
Muslims have similarly found themselves under scrutiny from the
United States government for their association with Islam. By embracing
Islam rather than condemning it, Muslims become prime targets as
suspected threats to national security. Captain James Yee, a former
Muslim chaplain at Guantánamo Bay, is a prime example. As a West Point
graduate who joined the military, Yee, like the honest Elizabeth Proctor,
appeared to be a model citizen.119 Before rejoining the military to become
a Muslim chaplain, Yee left the military for four years to study Arabic and
Islam.120 While working at Guantánamo, Yee agreed to escort the sixyear-old daughter of a chaplain’s assistant on a flight from Guantánamo
Bay to Jacksonville, Florida.121 At the time, he was writing a paper on the
impact of the then-new Syrian president, Bashar Assad, and was carrying
months of research with him.122
Meanwhile, an investigator from Guantánamo told customs agents in
Jacksonville that Yee could be transporting classified documents and
materials.123 Yee was stopped at the airport and interrogated by FBI
agents.124 His bag was searched thoroughly multiple times.125 Yee asked if
the searches had to do with his Islamic faith and the fact that it was the day
before the 9/11 anniversary, to which the officer replied, “You could say
that.”126 Ironically, when the FBI asked Yee about his work in
Guantánamo and about the identity of the prisoners, Yee refused to answer
because the information was classified.127 His interrogation ultimately led
to his being arrested, blindfolded, and subjected to seventy-six days of
solitary confinement in a navy brig.128 He was eventually accused of
espionage and mishandling information.129
Eight months later, Yee’s charges were dropped.130 One author
believes that Yee’s only crime was sympathizing with prisoners.131 Yee’s
119
RAPLEY, supra note 60, at 232.
Id.
121
JAMES YEE, FOR GOD AND COUNTRY (2005), in Michelle Norris, Muslim Army
Chaplain Recalls Guantánamo Ordeal, NPR BOOKS (Oct. 5, 2005, 12:00 AM),
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4946292.
122
Id.
123
Erik S. Lesser, The Ordeal of Chaplain Yee, USA TODAY (May, 16, 2004, 9:55
PM), http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-05-16-yee-cover_x.htm.
124
JAMES YEE, FOR GOD AND COUNTRY, in Muslim Army Chaplain Recalls
Guantánamo Ordeal, supra note 121.
125
Id.
126
Id.
127
Id.
128
Lesser, supra note 123.
129
Id.
130
Id.
131
RAPLEY, supra note 60, at 232.
120
218
LAW JOURNAL FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
Vol. 5
attorneys believe that his association with other Muslims in the camp led
to his suspicion, as Yee and other Muslim workers would convene
together in an empty office for prayer or just to eat.132 In any case,
through the lens of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, Yee was just another
victim who failed to acknowledge evil by accusing another.
B. Lack of Due Process
Although the rules of evidence that American courts use today were
not in existence in 1692,133 there is still cause to question the lack of
evidence in The Crucible. John Proctor does just that in Act Two of the
play. When Mary Warren reveals the details of her day in court, Proctor is
skeptical of the court’s idea of proof.134 That day, a woman named Mrs.
Osburn was tried for witchcraft.135 When Judge Hathorne accuses Mrs.
Osburn of mumbling a spell, she replies that she was only saying the Ten
Commandments.136 “Recite for us your commandments!” Judge Hathorne
then demands.137 Unfortunately for Mrs. Osburn, she could not remember
any of the Commandments, and she was therefore condemned.138 Mary
Warren sees great reason in this: “why, they must [condemn her] when she
condemned herself.”139 Proctor is perplexed and exclaims, “But the proof!
The proof!” But Mary Warren impatiently replies, “I told you the proof.
It’s hard proof, hard as a rock, the judges said.”140 Proctor is concerned to
the point that he forbids Mary Warren from returning to court. 141 She
adamantly refuses and asserts that she will go to court every day to pursue
this “weighty work.”142 Proctor sees the hypocrisy in this and retorts,
“What work you do! It’s strange work for a Christian girl to hang old
women!”143
Eventually, Proctor is able to convince Mary Warren to confess to the
falsities of the accusations in a deposition.144 He presents this deposition
as evidence during the trial of Martha Corey.145 However, he is rejected
132
Lesser, supra note 123.
Hoffer, supra note 79, at 293.
134
See MILLER, supra note 17, at 55.
135
Id.
136
Id.
137
Id.
138
Id.
139
Id.
140
MILLER, supra note 17, at 55.
141
Id. at 56.
142
Id.
143
Id.
144
Id. at 82.
145
Id.
133
Spring, 2015
THE CRUCIBLE
219
based on what the court considers better evidence. As soon as Proctor tries
to submit the deposition as evidence, Parris and Mr. Cheever accuse him
of sympathizing with the Devil.146 His character is challenged based on his
failure to attend church and even worse—he has plowed on a Sunday.147
Mr. Cheever concludes that this is evidence of Proctor’s lack of
credibility.148
Reverend Hale, seeing the injustice, tells Judge Danforth, “your
Honor, I cannot think you may judge the man on such evidence.”149 But
the judge is convinced by the young ladies’ performance in court: “I have
seen marvels in this court. I have seen people choked before my eyes by
spirits . . . I have until this moment not the slightest reason to suspect that
the children may be deceiving me.”150 Proctor tries to fight this with logic.
“Who tells us Rebecca Nurse murdered seven babies by sending out her
spirit on them? It is the children only, and this one [Mary Warren] will
swear she lied to you.”151 Pointing out that Mary Warren’s confession
should carry just as much weight as the other children’s accusations only
invites more accusations. He is accused of trying to overthrow the court.152
From the audience’s point of view, Proctor appears to be the voice of
reason. Why is it, then, that the judges in the play cannot see Proctor’s
reasoning? Only Reverend Hale has the sense to ask, “is every defense an
attack upon the court?”153 Reverend Hale then begs Judge Danforth to
allow Proctor to return to court with an attorney.154 Judge Danforth finds
this unnecessary. He presents the convoluted reasoning that “witchcraft is
ipso facto, on its face and by its nature, an invisible crime.” Therefore,
Judge Danforth reasons, the only witnesses are the witch and her victims,
and only the victims’ testimony can be relied upon.155 The judge
concludes, “what is left for a lawyer to bring out? I think I have made my
point.”156 In his essay, Society vs. The Individual in Arthur Miller’s The
Crucible, Jean-Marie Bonnet goes so far to say that language is a lost
cause for the accused:
In the court-scenes, language has reached a point when it is
of no help to anyone; all means of communication (and
146
MILLER, supra note 17, at 84.
Id.
148
Id.
149
Id.
150
Id.
151
Id. at 85.
152
MILLER, supra note 17, at 85.
153
Id. at 87.
154
Id. at 92.
155
Id. at 93.
156
Id.
147
220
LAW JOURNAL FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
Vol. 5
understanding) between the individual and society through
this medium, are blocked. The authorities suggest the
answers, or distort and discard all evidence by the mere
reply: “this is contempt of court.”157
Readers and scholars alike share frustration in the judges’ refusal to grant
the accused a fair chance to defend themselves. At times the courtroom
seems to be housing a circus rather than a judicial proceeding. Yet, the
hysteria over witchcraft continues to be fueled by public opinion to the
point that innocent people are sentenced to death.
One possibility for the judges’ willful blindness is that they will go to
any length to justify the side that is supposed to win. In other words,
because the trial has been portrayed as a battle of good versus evil, the
judges will only hear “evidence” that advances the aims of Reverend
Parris, a good Christian minister. This same reasoning may be used in
analyzing the unjust treatment of Muslims in America’s War on Terror.
Because President Bush framed the war as a battle of good versus evil, the
government is willing to overlook the problem of incarcerating individuals
without charging them of a crime.
In the case of Guantánamo Bay prisoners, the Supreme Court has
played the role of John Proctor and Reverend Hale, expressing its concern
over problems of due process. In Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court held
that federal district courts had jurisdiction to hear Guantánamo prisoners’
“habeas corpus challenges to the legality of their detention at the
Guantánamo Bay Naval Base.”158 Congress attempted to overturn this
ruling when it passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, but the
Supreme Court held that this did not apply to pending cases of
Guantánamo prisoners.159 The Supreme Court ruled that the detainees do
have a constitutional right to their habeas corpus privilege in Boumediene
v. Bush.160 In the United States district court case of In re Guantánamo
Bay Detainee Continued Access to Counsel, the Court explained that
“[t]his Court and the Supreme Court also held that Guantánamo detainees
have a concomitant right to the assistance of counsel.”161
Despite these decisions, like Judge Danforth in The Crucible, the
United States government turns a blind eye. Notwithstanding President
157
Jean-Marie Bonnet, Society vs. The Individual in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, in
THE CRITICAL RESPONSE TO ARTHUR MILLER 232, 235 (Steven R. Centola & Michelle
Cirulli eds., 2006).
158
Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 484 (2004).
159
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,548 U.S. 557, 575–78 (2006).
160
Boumediene v. Bush,553 U.S. 723, 732 (2008).
161
In re Guantánamo Bay Detainee Continued Access to Counsel, 892 F. Supp. 2d 8
(D.D.C. 2012) (citing Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,542 U.S. 507, 539 (2004) and Al Odah v.
United States,346 F.Supp.2d 1, 5 (D.D.C. 2004)).
Spring, 2015
THE CRUCIBLE
221
Obama’s campaign promise to shut down Guantánamo Bay, the Obama
administration continued to restrict prisoner’s access to counsel in 2012 by
implementing a new rule which provides that prisoners who are not
challenging their detention are not ensured access to their attorneys.162
Moreover, attorneys need approval from the authorities to access their
own files if they contain classified information—even though this
information is already kept in a “secure facility.”163
The justifications of these due process restrictions began with
President Bush. Although the Geneva Convention ensures the right to a
trial for prisoners of war,164 the United States government cleverly found a
loophole: because these men are not technically prisoners of war, but
enemy combatants, they are not entitled to the protection of the Geneva
Convention.165 Thanks to these restrictions, prisoners like Ahmed Bin
Saleh Bel Bacha spend years in detention without a trial.166 Bin Saleh Bel
Bacha was imprisoned for twelve years.167
The similarities between the due process withheld from the prisoners
at Guantánamo Bay and the accused in The Crucible show that Miller’s
play continues to predict human behavior decades after it first appeared on
stage.
III.
INTERROGATION WITH THE SOLE GOAL OF
CONFESSION
Throughout The Crucible, Miller constantly reminds the audience of
the importance of confession in 1692 Salem. As shown in the final scene
of the play, failure to confess ultimately leads to death.168 The authorities
in Salem pursue confession through intense interrogation. One scholar
describes the play as one that illustrates a “classically hysterical situation:
the strange moral alchemy by which the accused becomes inviolable; the
disrepute which overtakes the testimony of simple intelligence; the
insistence on public penance; the willingness to absolve if guilt is
162
The Right to Counsel at Guantánamo Bay, N.Y. TIMES (Aug. 16, 2012), http://
www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/opinion/the-right-to-counsel-at-guantanamo-bay.html.
163
Id.
164
Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, art. 103, Aug.
12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316, 75 U.N.T.S. 135.
165
RAPLEY, supra note 60, at 235–37.
166
Charles Savage, Military Repatriates Algerian Detainee From Guantánamo Bay,
N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 13, 2014), http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/us/politics/algeriandetainee-guantanamo-bay.html.
167
Id.
168
MILLER, supra note 17, at 132–34.
222
LAW JOURNAL FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
Vol. 5
confessed.”169 Miller took cues from his own experiences in emphasizing
the importance of confession in The Crucible. In his introduction to his
collected plays, Miller shares a horror story from the McCarthy era:
I knew of one man who had been summoned to the office
of a network executive and, on explaining that he had no
Left connections at all, despite the then current attacks
upon him, was told that this was precisely the trouble;
“You have nothing to give them,” he was told, meaning he
had no confession to make, so he was fired from his job
and for more than a year could not recover the will to leave
his house.170
Over fifty years later, prisoners at Guantánamo face similar circumstances
as they are subject to torture and intense questioning in order to aid
national security.171 By first looking to the interrogation methods used in
The Crucible, Part III of this paper seeks to uncover the faulty reasoning
behind utilizing torture as a means for confession in Guantánamo Bay.
During the witch hunt of Miller’s time—McCarthy’s Communist
witch hunt—people not only confessed and revealed the names of others
for fear of losing their jobs, but also, as Christopher Bigsby explains in his
introduction to The Crucible, “because they genuinely felt guilty about the
naïveté of their earlier commitments.”172 This feeling of guilt toward the
United States brought with it the desire to confess and be redeemed that is
so often found in a religious context.173 It is no wonder, then, that Miller
made sure to emphasize the idea of redemption through confession in his
play.
Abigail is a master at subtly drawing confession out of an innocent
bystander. In his essay, A “Social Play”, Leonard Moss describes
Abigail’s manipulation as a diabolical method whereby she “first
completely demoralize[s] [her] victim, then subtly implant[s] in him the
terms of a confession that will release him from suspicion and at the same
time achieve [her] own devious end.”174 Abigail’s methods can be seen in
action in the scene where she blames Tituba for Betty’s ailment. “She
169
Richard Hayes, Hysteria and Ideology, in The Crucible, in TWENTIETH CENTURY
INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CRUCIBLE , supra note 13, at 32, 32.
170
ARTHUR MILLER, ARTHUR MILLER’S COLLECTED PLAYS 40 (1957).
171
See generally CENTER FOR CONST. RIGHTS, REPORT ON TORTURE AND CRUEL,
INHUMAN, AND DEGRADING TREATMENT OF PRISONERS AT GUANTÁNAMO BAY, CUBA
(2006).
172
Christopher Bigsby, Introduction to ARTHUR MILLER, THE CRUCIBLE, supra note
1, at xii.
173
Id. at x.
174
Leonard Moss, A “Social Play”, in TWENTIETH CENTURY INTERPRETATIONS OF
THE CRUCIBLE, supra note 14, at 37, 39.
Spring, 2015
THE CRUCIBLE
223
made me do it . . . . She makes me drink blood!”175 Abigail shouts. But
Tituba replies, “You beg me to conjure! She beg me to make charm—”.176
Here, Abigail sets a trap for Tituba where a direct response would
necessarily cause Tituba to confess to engaging in witchcraft. Instead of
saying “she did it,” Abigail says, “she made me do it.”177 If she were to
accuse Tituba of drinking blood, a direct response from Tituba would be
to say, “I didn’t drink blood, you did.” Instead, Abigail accuses Tituba of
influencing her, which predictably causes Tituba to say the truth—that
Abigail begged her to conjure.178 In admitting this truth, Tituba confesses
to practicing witchcraft, thereby destroying any credibility she could have
had.179Abigail immediately gains the upper hand and is one step closer to
clearing her name.
The interrogations continue in Act Two of The Crucible with Elizabeth
and Proctor’s dual examinations. Reverend Hale, the interrogator, at first
appears in a nonthreatening manner by stating that he is not at the
Proctors’ house on account of court business.180 Despite this, Hale quickly
shifts into interrogation mode and begins asking Proctor questions about
his spiritual life.181 He asks why Proctor has rarely attended church, and
why only two of the Proctors’ three children are baptized.182 Then, the
damning question: Hale asks Proctor to recite the Ten Commandments.183
In The Crucible, failure to recite the Ten Commandments is a fair
justification for discrediting the accused. Proctor remembers all of the
Commandments but one: the command to refrain from committing
adultery.184 Upon learning which commandment he had forgotten, Miller
describes Proctor as speaking “as though a secret arrow had pained his
heart.”185
In this scene, Proctor realizes that he has done wrong against God and
his wife by having a relationship with Abigail. Yet, notwithstanding his
guilt in one area of his life, Proctor maintains the innocence of his
household to Reverend Hale. Proctor is not broken down by the
interrogation because he realizes that Reverend Hale’s method of
questioning seeks confession at all costs, rather than truth. Indeed, Proctor
175
MILLER, supra note 17, at 40–41.
Id. at 41.
177
Id. at 40.
178
See id. at 41.
179
See id.
180
Id. at 60.
181
Id. at 61-64.
182
Id. at 62.
183
Id. at 63.
184
MILLER, supra note 17, at 63–64.
185
Id. at 64.
176
224
LAW JOURNAL FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
Vol. 5
directly points this out to Reverend Hale. The Reverend confidently
asserts his method of interrogation as sound when he explains that he has
examined Tituba and others, all of whom confessed to working with the
Devil.186 “And why not,” Proctor replies, “if they must hang for denyin’
it? There are them that will swear to anything before they’ll hang; have
you never thought of that?”187
In revealing Reverend Hale’s faulty logic, Proctor calls attention to a
problem still faced by suspected terrorists. Detainees are interrogated for
the purpose of obtaining a confession or useful information. Given the
extreme circumstances surrounding their interrogation, it is reasonable to
consider that a detainee would volunteer false information to stop the
harsh treatment. For instance, before being brought to Guantánamo Bay,
prisoner Al Dossari claims that he was shocked with electricity and had
hot liquid poured on him during interrogation.188 Other prisoners at
Guantánamo have also reported abuse during interrogation. Interrogators
subject prisoners to psychological abuse by depriving prisoners of sleep,
keeping cells lit twenty-four hours a day, and exposing prisoners to
extreme hot and cold temperatures.189 In a summary of his observations of
Guantánamo, one FBI agent wrote:
On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find
a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the
floor, with no chair, food, or water. Most times they had
urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there
for 18, 24 hours or more. On one occassion[sic] . . . the
temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted
detainee was shaking with cold. When I asked the MP’s
what was going on, I was told that interrogators from the
day prior had ordered this treatment.190
Reports of physical abuse are also common at Guantánamo.191 In one case,
“pro-democracy” English teacher Sami Al-Laithi claims that physical
abuse in the prison led to his being confined to a wheelchair.192 A military
spokesperson stated that Al-Laithi’s disability is a result of a degenerative
disease, but Al-Laithi attributes it to having his back “stomped on” and
186
Id. at 65.
Id.
188
CTR. FOR CONST. RIGHTS , supra note 171, at 28.
189
Id. at 16.
190
Id. at 16. Original document can be found at FOIA Document 5053, http://www.
aclu.org/torturefoia/released/FBI_5053_5054.pdf (last visited March 15, 2015).
191
CTR. FOR CONST. RIGHTS, supra note 171, at 20.
192
Id. at 20.
187
Spring, 2015
THE CRUCIBLE
225
being thrown onto the floor.193 Al-Laithi has since been released and
declared to no longer be an enemy combatant.194
Guantánamo prisoners have also complained of religious abuse.
Prisoners claim that both guards and interrogators often show blatant
disrespect for the Qur’an by throwing the Islamic holy book on the
ground, stepping on it, and in one situation, even placing underwear on top
of it.195 Other forms of religious abuse include shaving the beards and
heads of Muslim prisoners, which in the view of a Muslim is a denial of
religious expression.196 Prisoners have also been punished by being sent to
the “Romeo block,” where they have their pants removed; this punishment
is extremely significant, as Muslim men cannot pray unless they are
covered from the waist down.197
While the forms of punishment seen onstage in The Crucible differ
from those used on Guantánamo prisoners, the principles of interrogation
remain the same. Miller’s characters incorporate intimidation into their
questioning by imposing the fear of God onto the accused. In doing this,
the accused are manipulated by their faith in Christianity. After all, if they
confess to the falsehood that they toyed with the Devil, they are
committing the twofold sin of lying and denouncing Christ. However, if
they fail to confess, they are still accused of being liars and blasphemers.
The interrogators at Guantánamo Bay also utilize the religious beliefs of
the prisoners to obtain a confession. Rather than uplifting their religious
beliefs as a means of guilt, the interrogators in Guantánamo torture
prisoners by defiling the Islamic faith. In both the play and real life,
religion is used as a tool for psychological torture.
Although the play does not outright show instances of torture, the
appearances of John and Elizabeth Proctor in jail indicate inhumane
conditions. After spending time in prison, Elizabeth is described as being
shackled, having dirty clothes, and her face “pale and gaunt.”198
Considering that Elizabeth is pregnant,199 it is alarming that she appears
malnourished and filthy. John Proctor is also shackled in jail.200 He is
described as “another man, bearded, filthy, his eyes misty as though webs
had overgrown them.”201
193
Id. at 20 (citing Carol D. Leonnig, Guantánamo Detainee Says Beating Injured
Spine, WASH. POST, Aug. 13, 2005, at A18).
194
Id.
195
Id. at 25.
196
Id. at 26.
197
Id.
198
MILLER, supra note 17, at 121.
199
Id.
200
Id. at 123.
201
Id.
226
LAW JOURNAL FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
Vol. 5
At this point, Proctor actually considers breaking down and
confessing.202 He can no longer endure the psychological and physical
agony of awaiting death in prison. He reasons that he is a bad man for
committing adultery, so why not save his life with an additional lie and
confess? But his wife replies, “yet you’ve not confessed till now. That
speaks goodness in you.”203 Despite being subjected to terrible conditions,
the Proctors still see honor in refusing to confess to a falsehood. Keeping
in mind that Miller was inspired by the Communist witch-hunt that he
witnessed, it follows that he emphasized the importance of maintaining
true innocence because he saw this in his own time. Is it possible that there
are many who have recently been detained in the name of national security
who fail to confess for the same reason? Perhaps with more judicial
oversight, this question would be easier to answer.
IV.
THE RESULTS OF HYSTERIA: FORFEITURE OF
RIGHTS
There is no question that the people of Salem forfeited their rights the
minute they chose to be governed by their fear of witchcraft. Suddenly, the
lives of adults were dependent on the wild tales of a few young girls.
Likewise, the hysteria surrounding the War on Terror following the 9/11
attacks have resulted in the sacrifice of many rights in order to stay safe
from terrorism. This part of the paper examines whether there is
legitimacy to the claim that sacrificing these rights actually keeps the
country safer, and looks to the similarities between the hysteria in The
Crucible and the War on Terror.
As discussed in earlier portions of this paper, the United States
justifies its inhumane treatment of suspected terrorists and its failure to
provide suspects proper due process with the imminent threat of a terror
attack. This begs the question, how imminent is this threat? True, the
results of the 9/11 attacks were awful, to say the least. But is a terror
attack as imminent as the government portrays it to be? Statistics say
otherwise. Since the terror attacks in 2001, the percentage of homicides
that can be attributed to Muslim extremists in the United States is onefiftieth of one percent.204 Yet, the government has taken gross steps to
violate the privacy and person of American citizens in the name of
fighting terrorism.
202
Id. at 125.
Id. at 126.
204
John Mueller & Mark G. Stewart, Witches, Communists, and Terrorists:
Evaluating the Risks and Tallying the Costs (2011), http://politicalscience.osu.edu/
faculty/jmueller/ABAFIN.PDF.
203
Spring, 2015
THE CRUCIBLE
227
One of the first reactions to the attacks of 9/11 was the passage of the
Patriot Act.205 According to the Department of Justice, the Act removed
“legal barriers” that kept law enforcement, the CIA, and national defense
communities from coordinating their efforts to protect the country.206
Critics, however, felt this presented a checks and balances problem.207 The
Act also broadened the government’s ability to impose surveillance on the
American people.208 Senator Russ Feingold, who was a member of the
Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, spoke out
when he saw the potential for the Act’s constitutional violations: “There
have been periods in our nation’s history when civil liberties have taken a
back seat to what appeared at the time to be legitimate exigencies of
war.”209 Feingold went on to cite several of these historical instances,
including the “blacklisting of supposed communist sympathizers during
the McCarthy era.”210
Under the authority of the Patriot Act, the Obama administration is
collecting records of phone calls and digital communications made within,
to, or from the United States.211 Even Jim Sensenbrenner, who authored
the Act, argues that this invasion of privacy exceeds even what the Patriot
Act allows.212 Moreover, Federal District Judge Richard Leon found in
Klayman v. Obama that this practice of collecting bulk metadata is likely a
violation of the U.S. Constitution’s fourth amendment.213 Judge Leon
reasoned:
Given the limited record before me . . . most notably, the
utter lack of evidence that a terrorist attack has ever been
prevented because searching the NSA database was faster
than other investigative tactics—I have serious doubts
about the efficacy of the metadata collection program as a
means of conducting time-sensitive investigations in cases
involving imminent threats of terrorism . . . Thus, plaintiffs
205
RAPLEY, supra note 60, at 207.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE USA PATRIOT ACT: PRESERVING LIFE AND
LIBERTY, http://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/what_is_the_patriot_act.pdf (last visited Mar.
15, 2015).
207
RAPLEY, supra note 60, at 207.
208
See Reform the Patriot Act, ACLU, https://www.aclu.org/reform-patriot-act (last
visited Mar. 15, 2015).
209
RAPLEY, supra note 60, at 209.
210
Id.
211
Jim Sensenbrenner, This abuse of the Patriot Act Must End, THE GUARDIAN (June
9, 2013, 7:00 AM), http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/09/abusepatriot-act-must-end.
212
Id.
213
Klayman v. Obama, 957 F. Supp. 2d 1, 40–41 (D.D.C. 2013).
206
228
LAW JOURNAL FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
Vol. 5
have a substantial likelihood of showing their privacy
interests outweigh the government’s interest . . . .214
Considering these challenges to the government’s privacy violations for
the sake of fighting terror, Senator Feingold’s initial reference to the
McCarthy era appears more relevant than ever.
Even more alarming is the Obama administration’s use of drone
attacks. In 2011, an American citizen with terrorist ties was assassinated in
Yemen by a drone strike without a trial.215 The administration is currently
debating whether to assassinate yet another American citizen in
Pakistan.216 Since 2009, three additional American citizens have been
killed overseas by drone strikes that were not targeted specifically at
them.217 The fact that Americans are being executed without trial has
incited outrage from both republicans and democrats.218
The more these rights violations are justified by terrorism, the more
these cases begin to sound like those in The Crucible. In the play, the
people of Salem trade in their rights to privacy and a proper trial to remain
safe from murderous witchcraft. The hysteria surrounding the town breeds
the idea that anyone could be a witch, therefore everyone should be
subject to intense scrutiny. Reverend Hale confirms this as he informs the
Proctors that even Rebecca Nurse, an old woman with a spotless
reputation for being upright and good, was mentioned at the trial.219 When
the Proctors express their disbelief that such a faithful woman could
murder children, Hale replies, “This is a strange time, Mister. No man may
longer doubt the powers of the dark are gathered in monstrous attack upon
this village.”220 Hale exhibits the same question-nothing-reasoning at trial,
as he points out that although it is hurtful to accuse someone who appears
so righteous, “we dare not quail to follow wherever the accusing finger
points!”221 With this mentality, the people of Salem submit to the
accusations of the children. Suspected witches are interrogated in their
own homes and asked personal questions about their spiritual lives.
214
Id.
Peter Bergen, Target an American with drones?, CNN, http://www.cnn.com/
2014/02/11/opinion/bergen-target-american-with-drones/ (last updated Feb. 11, 2014,
5:35 PM).
216
See id.
217
Kimberly Dozier, Drone Attack Controversy: Obama Administration Wrestling
With Whether To Target U.S. Terror Suspect, HUFF POST, http://www.huffington
post.com/2014/02/10/drone-attack-controversy_n_4758546.html (last updated Feb. 10,
2014, 10:59 am).
218
Bergen, supra note 215.
219
MILLER, supra note 17, at 61.
220
Id.
221
Id. at 68.
215
Spring, 2015
THE CRUCIBLE
229
Innocent men and women are summoned to court to have their fate
decided by screaming little girls and a fearful community. Finally, men
and women are killed as a result of this fear.
Of course, it can be argued that the fear of witchcraft and the fear of
terrorism are not comparable. Miller was confronted with a similar
argument that McCarthy’s witch hunt during the Cold War was not
analogous to the Salem Witch Trials portrayed in The Crucible.222 The
crux of the argument is that witches are a fantasy, while there is real
evidence that communists existed before and during the McCarthy era.223
Miller called this argument “a snobbish objection and not at all warranted
by the facts.”224 Based on his research of the Salem Witch Trials, Miller
was sure that people were in fact trying to communicate with the Devil
and worshipping the Devil.225 Moreover, the existence of witchcraft was
accepted as a fact by “virtually every secular and religious authority” of
that time.226 In other words, as far as the people of Salem were concerned,
witches were undoubtedly murdering children. In this respect, their fear
was no different from the fear of communism during the war, nor is it
different from the fear of terrorism today.
The parallels between people’s susceptibility to fear in Miller’s play
and in modern America are undeniable. One author wrote, “The folk who
do the final damage are not the lunatic fringe but the gullible pillars of
society.”227 Reading this sentence out of context, it can easily apply to
either the concern for witchcraft in The Crucible or the concern for
terrorism in America today. In both cases, the public has lent its
overwhelming support toward the needless sacrifice of their own rights in
order to fight an abstract cause.
CONCLUSION
After traveling back in time with Arthur Miller in The Crucible, there
is no doubt that the playwright’s concerns with the injustices that result
from American fear are well founded. An analysis of the rights denied to
suspected terrorists by the United States following the 9/11 attacks
indicates that Miller not only successfully commented on the Communist
222
Id. at 32-33.
Id. at 33.
224
Id.
225
MILLER, supra note 17, at 33.
226
Christopher Bigsby, Introduction to ARTHUR MILLER, THE CRUCIBLE, supra note
1, at xi.
227
Walter Kerr, A Problem Playwright, in TWENTIETH CENTURY INTERPRETATIONS
OF THE CRUCIBLE 35, 36 (John H. Ferres ed., 1972). Here, Kerr is in fact referring to
society in The Crucible.
223
230
LAW JOURNAL FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
Vol. 5
witch hunt of his time, but also on the War on Terror witch hunt that
America faces today.
By comparing the theocracy in Salem to the framing of the War on
Terror, I have attempted to demonstrate that the issues in The Crucible are
mirrored in society over fifty years after it was first performed. Presented
as a war of good versus evil from the outset, the War on Terror draws on
both the emotion and spirituality of the American people to gain support.
In both the play and the War on Terror, people are compelled to choose
sides based on their faith in the God of the Bible. The public is
manipulated by the desire to please God and fight on the right side, and
thus participates in the hysteria against a singled-out group.
As a result of this fear, suspects are treated without regard for human
rights. In The Crucible, this meant being summoned to court and
condemned to death without evidence. For modern terrorist suspects, this
means being incarcerated, tortured, or killed without being charged of a
crime or having the opportunity to go to trial. Even American citizens who
are not suspected terrorists are subject to having their constitutional rights
violated. All Americans are under the close eyes of the government, which
grants itself the right to spy on citizens’ private phone calls and digital
messages. After all, as Reverend Hale said, anyone—even those who do
not appear suspect—can be up to no good.
All in all, The Crucible serves as a prime example of how creative
expression can unite generations. Miller’s play reflects very negative
aspects of human behavior, and thus acts as a warning to future societies.
At the same time, the play illustrates true redemption through John
Proctor, and in that way sets an honorable example for the audience. With
The Crucible, Miller has immortalized a timeless cautionary tale.
Ultimately, it is up to society to understand the lesson.